The Gaming Den

Occluded Sun wrote:

darkmaster wrote:Now there are people who truly lack the ability to feel for other people and often will hurt others because they enjoy it. But those people are ill. They're sick and and we put them in hospitals instead of prisons because they need treatment.

A political metaphor that the ignorant and the easily-manipulated mistake for literal truth.

It's as though you'd never read Samuel Butler's Erewhon.

Alright, I know Kaelik was kind enough to respond to you already, but I feel I should defend myself. There was no metaphor there. In the states at least we recognize that a person, whom can be demonstrated to not just not feel bad about the crimes they've committed, but to be incapable of feeling remorse or empathy, to the satisfaction of a group of their peers, is not a criminal that needs to be punished but a sick person who needs help.

Sure you can present the defense that because you can't prove anyone or anything else exists outside your mind nothing exists and it is therefore impossible for you to have murdered someone, and you may be found not guilty, but that ruling will be by way of insanity and you will be put in an institution to treat your insanity.

You can site whatever 18th century satire you want that's how it works in the society I live in today and I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do things that way. I hate the things sociopaths often do, but I feel nothing but pity for them personally because I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be unable to feel for other people, to share someone's victories and defeats, to share your pain and happiness with someone else. It must be a sad, sad existence.

darkmaster wrote:I hate the things sociopaths often do, but I feel nothing but pity for them personalty because I can't imagine how horrible it would be to be unable to feel for other people, to share someone's victories and defeats, to share your pain and happiness with someone else. It must be a sad, sad existence.

It's not so bad.

darkmaster wrote:In the states at least we recognize that a person, whom can be demonstrated to not just not feel bad about the crimes they've committed, but to be incapable of feeling remorse or empathy, to the satisfaction of a group of their peers, is not a criminal that needs to be punished but a sick person who needs help.

No, in the US an insanity defense is claiming that the person committed the act without either realizing it was wrong or that they committed the act essentially while not having a connection to reality. For example, the girl who stabbed her friend so they could go live with a fantasy figure from a story, or someone who is schizophrenic and really believes that god told him to shoot the president because the president is the personification of the devil.

The fact that you don't feel bad about raping and murdering a dozen girls and would gladly do it again, though next time better so you don't get caught, doesn't make you legally insane for a criminal case. You were fully aware of your actions and fully understood that rape and murder is illegal, and you probably took some precautions to not get caught. So you go directly to prison, where you join the 25% or so of the inmates (estimates very wildly) who have these traits. Along with the 15% or so that have other serious mental illnesses (There about 3 times as many seriously mentally ill in prison than in mental hospitals).

Pretty sure you're looking for "Mens Rea". Insanity is an affirmative defense to many (not all) crimes, because and to the extent that it prevents you from having the Mens Rea required for the thing you did to be a crime.

darkmaster wrote:In the states at least we recognize that a person, whom can be demonstrated to not just not feel bad about the crimes they've committed, but to be incapable of feeling remorse or empathy, to the satisfaction of a group of their peers, is not a criminal that needs to be punished but a sick person who needs help.

Funny how people never use the insanity excuse for doing something _good_.

So yeah, a crazy guy raped and murdered a bunch of little kids. WE SHOULD HELP THAT GUY! HOORJ

infected slut princess wrote:Funny how people never use the insanity excuse for doing something _good_.

So yeah, a crazy guy raped and murdered a bunch of little kids. WE SHOULD HELP THAT GUY! HOORJ

Rarely are people forced to use legal defenses against criminal charges for good things they did.

But yes, I'm sure you believe that all people are inherently capable of making choices at that starving people are no more likely to choose theft than others. Because you are a stupid libertarian who believes that the only thing inherent to human beings is the concept of personal property, but definitely not the desire to feed themselves.

But you are wrong, and people commit crimes based on circumstance.

Spoiler alert, environmental effects and training people to deal with their problems can help people.

infected slut princess wrote:Funny how people never use the insanity excuse for doing something _good_.

Because we a talking about a legal defense here, you twit.

infected slut princess wrote:So yeah, a crazy guy raped and murdered a bunch of little kids. WE SHOULD HELP THAT GUY! HOORJ

I'd say someone who rapes a murders a bunch of children, like Karla Homolka, is probably a little disturbed, and probably could use a little therapy.

It' s so funny how you read my posts You're a real friend.

BUt yes "excuse" was the wrong word, but all this talk about "intent" just made me think about how some that dickmaster guy's post was all about not blaming insane fuckers who rape kids, at the same time a lot of people who think that way, practically speaking, don't much seem to diminish the "goodness" of "good" act done by an insane guy because he is insane. So that is a curious thing. Or whatever, who cares.

Anyway, I don't understand all these bizarre accusations:

But yes, I'm sure you believe that all people are inherently capable of making choices at that starving people are no more likely to choose theft than others.

haha WHAT am I reading this right? I think starving people aren't more likely to steal food? I guess it depends, but that would be true in a lot of situations I think. What exactly are you bitching about?

Because you are a stupid libertarian who believes that the only thing inherent to human beings is the concept of personal property, but definitely not the desire to feed themselves.

What the heck are you talking about. I mean, when I go through one of my hardcore anorexic phases, I have to suppress the desire to feed myself because it is inherent in me as a human being. Right? Maybe you've bene smoking drugs.

training people to deal with their problems can help people.

Yo, some guy raped and murdered some kids. Let's train him to deal with his problems! omg lol

infected slut princess wrote:at the same time a lot of people who think that way, practically speaking, don't much seem to diminish the "goodness" of "good" act done by an insane guy because he is insane. So that is a curious thing.

And you know this because... Remember when we told you that all conceptions are good and evil are completely arbitrary and you told you totally have an objective system that you refuse to tell us. Guess what, if we know that people who do things we don't want them to are largely motivated by their genetics and circumstances, then we also know the same applies to people we do the things we want. But because we are not idiots like you, who believe people are good or bad independent of factors outside their control, we don't try to change those factors, because they are already where we want them.

infected slut princess wrote:Yo, some guy raped and murdered some kids. Let's train him to deal with his problems! omg lol

Well first off, you are disingenuous liar when you pretend that child raping murders are the only criminals. They make up less than .001% of all crimes. But you try to use their existence in basically negligible numbers to oppose helping any criminals at all because you are a disingenuous and monstrous creature.

But in addition, yes, if someone raped and murdered some kids, I would want to analyze their condition so that we could figure out ways to make them not do that and find out ways to identify potential risk factors in order to help other people. Because I am not a monster, and I actually want the world to be a nicer place. Unlike you, where you instead want to enforce a strong good/evil dichotomy for the sole purpose of making yourself feel better about killing people who are not appreciably different from you, but happen to be born in worse circumstances.

Kaelik wrote: And you know this because... Remember when we told you that all conceptions are good and evil are completely arbitrary and you told you totally have an objective system that you refuse to tell us.

The burden of proof is on the dudes who say the proposition "raping kids is evil/bad/unjustified" is "arbitrary". I remember you saying that if a dude with a badge and a gun tells you that you can rape a kid, then you have the right to rape a kid.

I mean, that's pretty fucked up. So you know, it's like a criminal trial -- you have to make the prima facie case otherwise it is unnecessary for me to put up a defense, because you are wrong by default. I'm pretty sure I explained the basic thrust of my viewpoint at one time anyway, you must have missed it while you and the other Stalin-fappers were babbling about your pathetic "SOULS" and "property rights" strawmans.

FUCK THE STATE, FUCK RACISTS, AND FUCK MOST OF THE PEOPLE AT THE GAMING DEN!! AND FUCK D&D NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!1

God, there is so much stupid up in this bitch right now. This is some of the stupidest shit I've seen ISP post, which is pretty fucking impressive given the previous track record. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to mostly ignore the moral implications of the way ISP is basically coming out as against rehabilitation. I mean, yeah, it's odious, but it is super predictable coming from a Libertarian and thus uninteresting. Instead, I'm going to point out an irony here: if you do not believe someone is capable of being rehabilitated, then you should be pulling hard for them to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. You should want to happen because it results in involuntary commitment, which in the case of violent crazies mostly consists of medical personnel deciding that you shouldn't be released because you're incapable of rehabilitation. The whole "coddle the psychopath" approach actually routinely results in people being confined far longer than a sane criminal who committed similar acts.

infected slut princess wrote:The burden of proof is on the dudes who say the proposition "raping kids is evil/bad/unjustified" is "arbitrary".

No, that is not how burden of proof works. When you say "X exists" you have to prove that or we can just dismiss you as having no evidence because you are wrong.

infected slut princess wrote:I remember you saying that if a dude with a badge and a gun tells you that you can rape a kid, then you have the right to rape a kid.

Liar.

Kaelik. I apologize. I went back and looked. It wasn't you that said that. It was DSMATTICUS and ...you Lost Me. Maybe someone else, but I don't think you said it explicitly. You're still a scumbag though haha.

So, I probably shouldn't need to explain that ISP is full of shit to anyone here, but awhile back we had an argument with him about whether or not rights were magical properties written into the fabric of the universe by libertarian sky fairies or if they were nothing but artificial rules declared and enforced into existence by men. And because that argument was not going well for him, he decided it would be convenient to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of being pro-rape or something horrendously offensive, as though without his precious god natural rights fairies to tell us what acts laws are just, it would be impossible to condemn a law sanctioning rape.

He is bringing that up here because he thinks the admission "men living in countries with the right to rape their wives have the right to rape their wives, even though that is morally abhorrent and it is not a right they should have" is some incredible gotcha that he can bust out whenever he needs the moral highground. It very obviously isn't, but as far as distracting from the topic with libelous soundbites go, "and you are raping women!" is... definitely up there. Of course, when the Soviet Union tried that trick it was at least accurate, if still fallacious: communists 1, libertarians 0.

DSMatticus wrote:So, I probably shouldn't need to explain that ISP is full of shit to anyone here, but awhile back we had an argument with him about whether or not rights were magical properties written into the fabric of the universe by libertarian sky fairies or if they were nothing but artificial rules declared and enforced into existence by men. And because that argument was not going well for him, he decided it would be convenient to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of being pro-rape or something horrendously offensive, as though without his precious god natural rights fairies to tell us what acts laws are just, it would be impossible to condemn a law sanctioning rape.

He is bringing that up here because he thinks the admission "men living in countries with the right to rape their wives have the right to rape their wives, even though that is morally abhorrent and it is not a right they should have" is some incredible gotcha that he can bust out whenever he needs the moral highground. It very obviously isn't, but as far as distracting from the topic with libelous soundbites go, "and you are raping women!" is... definitely up there. Of course, when the Soviet Union tried that trick it was at least accurate, if still fallacious: communists 1, libertarians 0.

You're mixing up the religious right and the libertarian movement here. While there is some spillover, they're not one and the same.

sarcasmoverdose wrote:

DSMatticus wrote:So, I probably shouldn't need to explain that ISP is full of shit to anyone here, but awhile back we had an argument with him about whether or not rights were magical properties written into the fabric of the universe by libertarian sky fairies or if they were nothing but artificial rules declared and enforced into existence by men. And because that argument was not going well for him, he decided it would be convenient to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of being pro-rape or something horrendously offensive, as though without his precious god natural rights fairies to tell us what acts laws are just, it would be impossible to condemn a law sanctioning rape.

He is bringing that up here because he thinks the admission "men living in countries with the right to rape their wives have the right to rape their wives, even though that is morally abhorrent and it is not a right they should have" is some incredible gotcha that he can bust out whenever he needs the moral highground. It very obviously isn't, but as far as distracting from the topic with libelous soundbites go, "and you are raping women!" is... definitely up there. Of course, when the Soviet Union tried that trick it was at least accurate, if still fallacious: communists 1, libertarians 0.

You're mixing up the religious right and the libertarian movement here. While there is some spillover, they're not one and the same.

No, this is all ISP. I think he/she/it/they isn't even religious. I think this was all from the MAGIC SOOOOOOULS libertarian thread.

ISP (and the other idiots in this thread) makes me want to replace my sig with a "Hello new person, the following people are terrible, and you should put them on ignore. Each name is a link to evidence of their horribleness" message for when people find the Den.

sarcasmoverdose wrote:

DSMatticus wrote:So, I probably shouldn't need to explain that ISP is full of shit to anyone here, but awhile back we had an argument with him about whether or not rights were magical properties written into the fabric of the universe by libertarian sky fairies or if they were nothing but artificial rules declared and enforced into existence by men. And because that argument was not going well for him, he decided it would be convenient to accuse everyone who disagreed with him of being pro-rape or something horrendously offensive, as though without his precious god natural rights fairies to tell us what acts laws are just, it would be impossible to condemn a law sanctioning rape.

He is bringing that up here because he thinks the admission "men living in countries with the right to rape their wives have the right to rape their wives, even though that is morally abhorrent and it is not a right they should have" is some incredible gotcha that he can bust out whenever he needs the moral highground. It very obviously isn't, but as far as distracting from the topic with libelous soundbites go, "and you are raping women!" is... definitely up there. Of course, when the Soviet Union tried that trick it was at least accurate, if still fallacious: communists 1, libertarians 0.

You're mixing up the religious right and the libertarian movement here. While there is some spillover, they're not one and the same.

Nah, I'm referring to another thread. We had an argument about natural rights here and here. ISP is a self-proclaimed libertarian/anarchist/I can't actually remember, and has the usual natural rights justification for why whatever his preferred definition of property rights is is sacred and unassailable. When confronted with the argument that natural rights might not objectively exist and rights might actually just be shit people make up and agree to enforce, he brought up legal rape and acted like he had some amazing gotcha because... who fucking knows, apparently he thinks you can't declare laws wrong without natural rights theory (you obviously can)? He decided to reference that in this thread, so now I'm making fun of him on the basis that that argument is identical to an argument from the religious right ("atheists have no morality because they are without god").

Whipstitch wrote:You should want to happen because it results in involuntary commitment, which in the case of violent crazies mostly consists of medical personnel deciding that you shouldn't be released because you're incapable of rehabilitation. The whole "coddle the psychopath" approach actually routinely results in people being confined far longer than a sane criminal who committed similar acts.

Well, we have nice example going on in the person of one Christopher Hubbart. Who raped 25 or so women in 1972, and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital (instead of state prison for 50 years). When the hospital pronounced him cured and freed him in 1979 guess what he did? He raped about 10 more women. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but got probation after about 10. In 1990 he was set free and guess what he did? Yes, you have it, he raped another woman, this time apparently the cops had him on the top of the suspect list, so he only got one before back to the hospital he goes. They pronounced him cured in 1993, but he went back to the hospital in 1996. Apparently he's completed his sex offender treatment plan and the judge let him out again today...

DSMatticus wrote: Nah, I'm referring to another thread. We had an argument about natural rights here and here. ISP is a self-proclaimed libertarian/anarchist/I can't actually remember, and has the usual natural rights justification for why whatever his preferred definition of property rights is is sacred and unassailable. When confronted with the argument that natural rights might not objectively exist and rights might actually just be shit people make up and agree to enforce, he brought up legal rape and acted like he had some amazing gotcha because... who fucking knows, apparently he thinks you can't declare laws wrong without natural rights theory (you obviously can)? He decided to reference that in this thread, so now I'm making fun of him on the basis that that argument is identical to an argument from the religious right ("atheists have no morality because they are without god").

Oh god, why did I bother to read that link.

He who increaseth wisdom increaseth sorrow.

sarcasmoverdose wrote:You're mixing up the religious right and the libertarian movement here. While there is some spillover, they're not one and the same.

The entire point is that when it comes to the evidence and argumentation strategy they are exactly the same, they just have different names for their magic axioms that have no evidence and are contradicted by observable reality and the things you are told to do are slightly different.

Oh man I totally forgot the part of the thread where ISP is a rapist and rapes children over and over. (In a hypothetical where he decides to call himself by another name for some reason.)

But one thing we can all agree on is that foxwarrior was completely wrong:

Foxwarrior wrote:Someday, ISP will explicitly define "right".

S0 even though we are almost one year later with ISP totally promising to explain how he knows rights exist and what they are just as soon as he has the time... Still nothing.

Yeah, I'd definitely consider Hubbart a failure, but the general pattern still holds true.

infected slut princess wrote:

darkmaster wrote:In the states at least we recognize that a person, whom can be demonstrated to not just not feel bad about the crimes they've committed, but to be incapable of feeling remorse or empathy, to the satisfaction of a group of their peers, is not a criminal that needs to be punished but a sick person who needs help.

Funny how people never use the insanity excuse for doing something _good_.

Well, you totally could. You'd just need a legal system based on some inverted moral code such that helping people was a crime. Or whatever. It would be quite dystopian, but probably effective.

You could have intense therapy to get rid of those good tendencies.